Because first and foremost, I'm a writer.

Yes, this post is a complete departure from what you'll normally find here on 'My Stoney Creek'. I don't do it all that often, but because being a writer...especially in my guise as screenwriter...informs how I see things, I occasionally feel the need to share. 

So, without further ado, two offerings. 

The first is an 'explanation' of the recently-released Ridley Scott film 'Prometheus':

And the second is maybe more important: it's an exploration of the question 'How come so many movies bite?' The essay, 'Robbing From The Poor (Writer)' provides some insight into how a good idea gets so ridiculously fucked-over in 'the production process'. Though the author doesn't frame things in this way, it comes down to:

Screenwriters are not afforded the same respect as playwrights. 

As a playwright, your work cannot be altered in any way without your permission. The role of 'writer-as-creator' is respected. 

As a screenwriter, once you've been paid, all bets are off.

In theatre, the playwright reigns supreme. 

In film, the screenwriter is a hired-hand.  

And until this changes, expect great screenplays being hijacked and turned into shite films. 


I'm just sayin'...






M Adrian Brassington

Thanks for the world-record spit-take, 'Morris'

Anonymous said...

How true of Cal DiFalco and The Hamiltonian. Freedom of Speech, this is what The Hamiltonian is about. This is what our great country is supposed to be about. Great Job Mr. DiFalco. Thank you for allowing our views and input on so many topics that affect our wonderful City. You should be commended and nominated for Citizen of the Year!!!!

Morris on behalf of many many Hamiltonians and Canadians.

Wowza.

That's all I can say.

Well...at least for starters.

Yesterday I had two different coffee-conversations at two different locations with two different sets of table-mates. In each conversation, the profiles, mandates and behaviour of two of the online 'civic' blogs that I read -The Hamiltonian and Raise the Hammer- came up and were discussed to varying degrees. I actually played the role of 'advocate' in both situations, being the one to point out the merits of each site, attempting to offer up sympathetic explanations (bordering on 'cheerleading' at times) as to their respective functions, etc.

You might be wanting to ask 'Why would you bother to do this? You're an independent blogger, aren't you in competition with them?' And my answer would be simple: I believe in community. I believe in all of us having something to contribute to things being 'better'. The times when The Hamiltonian and Raise the Hammer have 'joined forces'...even if just to encourage people to get out and vote...or when, for example, Cal has commented on Ryan's site, have genuinely made me smile. Not because a shared opinion is being presented, or like-minds are on display, but because I believe that this 'cross-pollination' engenders the non-partisan, lets-get-real-dialogue-going mindset that prefaces things actually getting 'better'. Even as I recognize what each of them do, how they do it...and provide clues as to their ultimate intent.

For example, almost in toto, what Cal does is provide an issue for discussion...and then has his readers provide most of the actual editorial content. Though things might have changed slightly of late, this is the construct The Hamiltonian has front-and-center. Ryan, on the other hand, presents articles and editorials written either by himself or by contributors. Then, of course, the mic is passed around and people 'let loose the dogs of war'. (I have to say that the most disappointing element of RTH is the voting. To me, 'voting' has no part in any genuine discussion. Would you do that in real life? No. If you disagreed with something someone said, you'd counter it with your own argument...presumably in a hospitable and convivial way. You wouldn't stand there and yell 'Who thinks this guy's point is SHIT?!? Hands up if you want to 'downvote' this twerp!' If I had one suggestion for Ryan, as a casual, yet engaged observer, I'd say 'Get rid of the voting. PLEASE.') As for each blog's ultimate intent... Well, you can read what they each say about their site's mandate...but I don't happen to believe this tells the entire story.

Having said all this, I'm brought back to the comment made by one of The Hamiltonian's readers, the one that opens this post. And I'm going to address the vacuousness of the suggestion that 'Morris' makes, by reminding you of how The Hamiltonian does what it does. It is not an editorial production machine in the way that Raise the Hammer is. More to the point, Cal is no Ryan. I do not believe that there's much of anything of who and what Cal DiFalco is on The Hamiltonian. (And if there is...then he's certainly not a candidate for 'Citizen of the Year'.)

I repeat: The Hamiltonian's 'M.O.' is to present a notion, an issue, most often linking to an external source such as The Spec (oh, and while I'm saying those words, a gentle reminder to The Hamiltonian's Team of Moderators, who seemingly insist that commenters refer to the publication's name in its full form, 'The Spectator': here's their URL. When you go there, at the top, to the left? 'The Spec'. Please, stop being so cloyingly anal. You come off as a '3' dressed up as a '9'.) and then lets its readers perform the actual editorial function. Putting aside the fact that I have no way of determining what role Cal actually plays on his own site...which is actually kinda odd, given that he's put his photo front-and-center, a move that would be far more apropos for Ryan to do over at RTH...the fact is that there is no extant editorial presence. There is no 'leadership' to speak of...other than someone posting these issues, suggesting these topics for consideration...and then letting everyone 'have at it'.

So it's a little bizarre to see the kinds of sentiments that 'Morris' and others throw up. (I am not using this phrase advisedly, by the way.) During the election campaign there were more than a handful of instances when 'Cal for mayor!' cheers arose, when he was lauded, when he was championed. (Clearly, 'Morris' hadn't initiated my first spit-take.)

Which quite frankly made me wonder if these people had any more on the ball than those who voted 'by name recognition' in our recent election. And then there's the notion of this behaviour, these expressions of political awareness...on a certifiably laudable civic engagement site. Oi-friggin'-vey.

Look; I've met Cal. We had coffee together earlier this year, during which we had a very pleasant, quietly-revelatory meeting-of-the-minds. Subsequent to that, I've been fortunate to have had all manner of input concerning him presented me by third parties. (He is very active in certain arenas within his own community.) And finally, not to put too fine a point on it, one of the credos of writers everywhere has also been put into play regarding Cal, the one that says 'A person's true character isn't revealed in what they say, but in what they do.' And I'll leave it at that.

Even understanding that what I've said here might come across as 'sour grapes' (despite this assumption being woefully inaccurate and wildly ignorant of who I am and why I do what I do), I stand by what I've said here. Because the sentiments expressed by 'Morris' indicate to me the propensity for ill-informed, lazy 'cult of personality' thinking (I'm being generous) that is the exact opposite of what I value: informed, qualified opinions, resulting in substantive engagement...and by extension, the hope that there's a better chance of making things 'better'.

So to paraphrase that cute kid from the old Heinz Beans commercial, 'More substance, please!'

Mr. Conciliatory Takes The Stage (Sorta, kinda...)

I don't suffer fools gladly.

Never have, never will.

I inherited this trait from my father...though over the years I've refined how I deal with fools, taking his generally stoic regard and adding my own élan to the process.

Additionally, I'll further admit to being a snob. At least an intellectual one. It's not that I don't have time for people who strain for cogency...but I am not able -'willing'?- to indulge to any great extent. I recognize on a spiritual level that everyone has their own divinity, that each path and the expressions of these paths deserve respect within this context...but that's as far as I go. (The human part of me is not the identical twin to the spiritual. Sue me.)

WRCU2, a well-known (and well-regarded) area blogger and commenter-on-other-blogs took me to task for something I said in Part One of an editorial I ran this morning. I replied. Maybe not with as much grace as I'd have wanted...at least in retrospect...but I'm not here to apologize or make nice.

I am here to clarify something he/she said.

"You do a fine job of baiting the reader with pen, in an attempt to conjure up someone else's solution, yet do not offer your own opinion of a "fix" in your contorted convolution."

(Christ, what scares me is that I think we'd actually get along in real Life; the Internet magnifies and distorts and often skews perspective something awful...and I've never liked his/her use of videos in his/her comments, so the word 'twat' is one I've consistently applied when I come across his/her offerings. Despite this, I sincerely do believe we'd probably do fine over coffee. Go figure.)

So here's what I wanted to say in response:

You will find, if you digest everything I've ever written on this site over the past near-four months, through almost 225 posts, that while I am undeniably critical, caustic and even damning in my examination of the admittedly slim number of of issues I've taken the time to address...

...I have always offered up potential solutions and/or remedies.

To wit:

-The Merlo Clear-cut, the issue that prompted this blog: my posts are rife with suggestions, with observations, with posited explanations for this still-unexplained incident. The efforts I went to to track down experts and try to solve the mystery were substantial.

-The Downtown Stoney Creek Parking Meters Brouhaha: I have repeatedly deconstructed this faux-cause, and provided all manner of possible 'solutions'. (See the next item.)

-The Downtown Stoney Creek Vibrancy Conundrum: I wrote a ten-part series examining the situation from an historical perspective...and actually redesigned the entire BIA from top-to-bottom, King Street from Lake Avenue to Elm Street for anyone that would listen. (Turns out the Powers-That-Be have been listening...err, 'reading'. And they're attempting to do something about the conundrum as we speak.) Not only that, I have been strident in communiqués with the City, with the Stoney Creek News and the Stoney Creek Business Improvement Area.

-The Stoney Creek Dairy facilities: I proposed a use for the property, given that this is an amazing civic opportunity that will never come again. (The plant is leaving, but how the land will be used next has yet to be announced.) I contacted both the purchaser of the equipment in Quebec as well as the current owner of the property in an effort to create a spark.

-The Battlefield Park Master Plan: Having digested and examined the proposals, I attempted to engage those parties responsible in order to offer up feedback. Not only that, but I've been in touch with the Ward Councillor about the connection between this Master Plan, the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Stoney Creek and the fact that there currently is no 'downtown' for anyone visiting on this auspicious occasion to actually spend any time in, doing anything...or more importantly, spending any money.

-Fruitland Road and Its Traffic Woes: I've made countless attempts to gain a better, more cogent perspective on this longstanding issue, contacting just about all the major players...and I've even offered up my own simple, practical, stop-gap solution to provide some degree of relief to the beleaguered residents.

-The Pan Am Games Stadium Debate: I've offered up my suggestions, rather than railing at any or all of the proposals...even though my approach is decidedly different from about 90% of the population...including Mr. Young.

-Ward Councillors and Their Relationships with Residents: I don't need to belabour the point here; I'm devoting a ton of time to trying to 'think outside the box' and envision a way to get to a better, more effective local governance paradigm, this 'relationship of engagement' thing.

I'm known for not offering an opinion unless I'm confident it's worthy of consideration. Which is why I don't offer opinions just to hear myself talk, or gain some sort of validation by way of tapping at my keyboard. (My main complaint about online commenters.) Additionally, I 'specialize' in being able to 'see' situations and provide feedback as to how to make things better. (Sure, I'll produce references, if that would make anyone feel better. As long as they're willing to provide the same, in kind.) So you better believe that I'm going to take personally someone saying something akin to what WRCU2 mouthed-off about this morning. I am nothing at all if I'm not someone who takes both personal credibility and propriety seriously.

So; I will always welcome strong comments...but be aware that if you attack me and you don't have your shit together, I'm gonna be itchin' to wrassle. And I always get the last laugh. (It's in my contract.)

Addendum: Just so's there's no misunderstanding, my preamble refers to what actually prompted my ire towards WRCU2, how I regard so many online commenters. But then, I dealt with this all here.

Flay me if you wish..

Titian’s Flaying of Marsyas.

...but the truth of the matter is that most comments I read online at sites such as 'The Hamiltonian' or 'Raise the Hammer' are...well... Disposable. they fall in the category of what I refer to as 'unqualified opinions'. Chaff. Sludge. Intellectual speed-bumps. Irritating rashes. Chafing-

LMAO.

OK; even I grant that riffing on this stuff is a little too indulgent. So instead, I'll post a tirade previously published elsewhere, but before I do, I'm compelled to post this quip made to me recently about a fairly well-known 'commenter/personality/gadabout':

"Yes, I find his comments are intentionally disruptive, and it seems he gets pleasure out of this approach."

I think I've determined my view on Comments sections, on message board contributions.

Now, I'm not talking about one site.

Or one topic.

I'm referring to a broad spectrum of both. Low-brow to the intellectually challenging. From IMDb to ESPN to The Washington Post to the Toronto Star to Newsweek to The Huffington Post to PBS.

Sports. Politics. Entertainment. Relationships. General news.

Here's what I've come up with:

Roughly 90% of all posts aren't worth reading. Are a waste of time. Contribute nothing to either generating or furthering dialogue or discussion.

Roughly 7% of all posts have some degree of merit. Contribute something to generating or furthering dialogue or discussion, even if it's well-mannered filler.

Roughly 3% of all posts actually further discussion, promote dialogue, elevate the exchanges, or inspire heightened awareness, promote intellectual investigation.

And to be honest, I think the last two numbers are a little high.

Seriously; what depresses me the most is that people use the Internet as a means to validate their existence by typing something and pressing 'Submit'. That's all.

As with the case with cell phone technology (which absolutely, positively has not made relationships in general 'better', and I highly doubt has done much to 'improve' the world, certainly not to the extent of its penetration into modern life), access to Internet discussions has not heightened political acumen, has not increased peoples' general awareness levels, has not endowed them with much beyond the ability to spew.

To hector.

To hate.

Here's a further truth, from someone who has, this week, been accused of being an 'intellectual snob': many people have nothing to say.

Many people are 'functional' intelligence-wise, but are not capable of much beyond this.

'Small minds talk about people. Average minds talk about events. Great minds talk about concepts.'

This is oh, so demonstrable online.

The Comments section of articles is the equivalent of old-fashioned Letters To The Editor. How many people who take sixty seconds to type out a vitriolic response do you really believe would make the effort to write an actual letter to a publication?

We live in a world where people are fear-filled. Scared. And in this state, they lash out. They're not willing to consider, they're not interested in rational debate, civil discourse... They want to damn this person to hell, they want to dismiss entirely that person's skills...they even want some people to be 'dead'.

'Net Courage'. This is what fuels so much of what you can see online. The energy that allows someone sitting at a keyboard to say things to someone else that they simply would not say to their face. Or to the collective face.

People talk about how the Internet has brought people closer. They talk about how Facebook and Twitter have allowed people to reconnect, to maintain 'relationships' from a distance.

From my perspective, it's allowed people to believe that they're connecting, to convince themselves that they're engaging, that they're in the middle of a 'relationship'. When in reality, they're not.

Further to this, I believe that all electronic communication is, to a large extent, false. I may come off as a real luddite here, but I'm beginning to believe that unless you can breathe the same air as the other person is breathing as you're 'talking', it's not real, true, substantive communication. The further away you get from this, the further away you get from authentic exchanges. Standing in front of the person is better than the phone which is better than writing a letter which is better than an email or an online chat which is better than a text which is better than a Tweet. God didn't design us with built-in modems. We're living, breathing animals, living in an animal world. As I came to understand years ago, 'It ain't real until you kiss 'em.'

It saddens me that so powerful an influence hasn't really accomplished much in terms of enhancing communication between people. Instead, it's acted as a means for people to vent, to somehow validate vacuous existences, to empower those who clearly need to address their lives and not give them a false sense of entitlement.

I think that in many ways, the more efforts that are made to promote 'equality', the further into the dreck we wander.

That kind of thought undoubtedly makes me a snob of a different type entirely...but I'll save that for another time.

Not that I've ever had *any* respect for taggers...

...but this scene takes the proverbial cake.

This snapshot was taken this morning just south of the TH&B railway tracks at Battlefield Creek.

A half-dozen cans just dumped in the bushes.

Nice.

Some years back, I wrote a short screenplay about tagging. A kindasorta 'the chickens have come home to roost' sort of tale. Anyone interested in reading it, please email me: mystoneycreek@gmail.com

Twin Sons of Different Mothers?

Chris Martin of Coldplay

Martinus Geleynse of Ward 2 Candidacy

And so, the 'sexier' option is finally being presented by mainstream media...

I've long maintained that change on a societal level is often not the beast we think it is.

Yes, there's incremental change that's hard to notice, versus the kind of change that results because of a major crisis or development. But I'm referring primarily to lifestyle change. Like, for example, how we eat. How we regard work. How we recreate, how we educate, how we see our physical selves, our fitness, our health...how we define our living spaces, and thereby, how we live our lives.

Within these 'lifestyle' choices, I believe that change happens...outside the cataclysmic, famine and drought, war and depression-type occurrences...because something 'sexier' is introduced.

Horse -> Car

Theatre/Vaudeville -> Cinema

Radio -> Television

Records -> CDs -> MP3s

Cinema -> Home viewing

Home cooking -> Pre-packaged, processed foods (-> Crap health/Obesity pandemic)

Activity -> Leisure (-> Obesity pandemic/Crap health)

Because of this approach to how I see change, I've been skeptical of how the notion of 'Less is more' as a lifestyle choice could ever gain traction. Despite believing that the consumer society is doomed, that our only hope of survival is to migrate from our materialistic, acquisitional, consuming culture to an 'experiential' one, I felt that unless the 'sexier' element was in play, nothing would result. Bottom-line: nobody wants to be forced to reduce their -perceived- 'standard of living'. (That's why Duane Elgin's book is called 'Voluntary Simplicity'.)

Well, this past weekend, I got a chance to have my cynicism eroded just a mite with the New York Times article by Stephanie Rosenbloom 'But Will It Make You Happy?', also found at MSNBC as 'Side effect of the new frugality: Happiness'.

Please give it a read. I'll be taking a look at this whole issue in the next while under the label of 'Commentary indulgence'.

Namasté.

Taking a Step Back

Though this is my 'civic activism' blog, I've contributed and posted elsewhere on the subject for a while. I'm not a city planner, I claim to be no authority, have no 'schooling', but have developed an abiding appreciation for living spaces over the years, especially having spent time in a fairly broad variety of locales.

When I've lived locally, I've always felt I was a citizen of two cities; Stoney Creek and Hamilton. I was born there...but raised here. I lived in Hamilton for long stretches of my adult life and established one of my careers there...and yet currently live in Stoney Creek, having returned here quite unexpectedly. I should add that I'm not 'torn' between them, not at all. Not when my tattoo declares: 'Nothing succeeds like excess'. Each city represents different things to me, and I revel in them all.

It's ironic that currently, both are in need of revitalization and rejuvenation. Funny, that...

I've mentioned in other essays that I'm always more interested in knowing the 'Reason Behind the Reason' ('RBR', my riff on 'Question Behind the Question', an approach to accountability coined by personal guru and business success consultant John G. MIller.) than I am in the details of what's happened. In fact, the actual event, the decision, the process almost never holds as much fascination for me. I want to know more about what led to what's in the spotlight than the object itself, I want the backstory more than I want the news item.

So I guess it should come as no surprise that I've gotten into my shares of tussles with people looking back on mistakes Hamilton has made. Mostly because a) they're often as not nearly old enough to have seen first-hand what they're ranting about, b) they've not done sufficient research to hold a qualified opinion, and c) they look back with the perspective of modern day, with a 2010 mentality. (I'm tempted to add d) that they take waaaaaaay too much delight in expressing righteous indignation...people for whom getting pissed-off seems to be some kind of side-vocation. But I won't. I do have some restraint.)

Probably the greatest target for them to aim their vitriol at is the Jackson Square effort. Originally conceived as 'Civic Square', it was a grand scheme with the lofty goal of reinventing the downtown.

Now, I'm not writing this piece in order to delve into what transpired, why it's regarded by so many as a qualified failure. For anyone who's interested, there's a fabulous essay available online entitled 'The Facelift and the Wrecking Ball: Urban Renewal and Hamilton’s King Street West, 1957–1971' by Margaret T. Rockwell. Google it. It's well worth the effort. In fact, if you live in the area, you owe it to yourself to understand why things are the way they are in Downtown Hamilton these days...and this document will supply a good half of the story.

What compels me to put finger to keyboard is the renewed understanding of how dangerous it is to look back and re-examine what was, what happened...without appreciating context. Because by insisting on interpreting 'facts' this way, nothing is accomplished...and the conversational waters definitely get muddied. To everyone's detriment.

In a nutshell, most people looking at the débacle that was the Jackson Square effort focus on what resonates for them (the loss of all those 'shantytown' residences, the light-manufacturing businesses that were woven into the fabric of the area, and perhaps the #1 complaint: Old City Hall) and forget to -or willfully decide not to- factor in all the contributing elements.

In effect, they don't consider the Reasons Behind the Reasons.

Jackson Square (or, as I have pointed out, 'Civic Square') was conceived in the 50s. The men who were responsible (yes, it would be almost entirely men shaping the future of a city's core), the movers and shakers, the planners and developers, the politicians and money-men were generally of a generation whose roots were in the turn of the 20th century. They were the products of two World Wars, one that had only been fought a decade and a half previously. They had lived through The Great Depression and were living within the circumstances of the Cold War, they witnessed the rise of Madison Avenue defining the new religion of consumerism, they were seeing the birth of rock and roll, of television, they rode the seemingly endless waves of the post-war boom...they were of a mindset predicated on the need for change, for growth, for creating a future that owed less to respect for the past, convention and conservation than it did to innovation and progress...progress, progress, progress.

These are the elements that the ranters seem to constantly forget. Or ignore.

These are the contributing factors that played parts in how badly things turned out downtown, informing the entire process to so great an extent...

...and yet mostly, they're disregarded by those whose motto seems to be 'Vilify, Vilify, Vilify!' Lord knows they rant it at full-speed (and full-volume) when they're in their revisionist-cups, and along with irking me something fierce, this tendency makes me sad. Because in their own way, they're crapping on the past as much as they're accusing the transgressors from back then of doing.

No matter the situation we're talking about, I think it's important to understand how we got to where we are. That we must truly understand to as great an extent as is possible, before we can effect any solutions or corrections. That it behooves us to take a really good look at the entire picture and not just the part we want to put under the microscope.

Humans are inherently flawed. All humans are foible-rich. While I believe that there are always going to be some who have dastardly intentions, most 'screw-ups' aren't the result of some diabolical plot...they're more a grand combination of missteps and miscalculations, badly-formulated concepts as executed by less-than-brilliant practitioners...rarely the result of evilness, but rather, orchestrations of stupidity. ('The Gore Park Fiasco', anyone...?)

So my wish for anyone trying to glean understanding of something -it could be a development scenario, it could be a political faux pas, it might be a crisis-of-confidence in a relationship- is to endeavour to grasp the fullest context possible, given your resources. To search out the Reasons Behind the Reasons.

Oh, and leave the ranting for the online 'experts'. Unlike Love and Wealth, I suspect there is a finite amount of Vilification in the universe, and really; who are we to deny the High Dudgeon group their sustenance?

Thank you, Goethe.

"Civilization is a permanent exercise in respect. Respect for the divine, the earth, for our fellow man and so for our own dignity."

...with some perspective on the side, please.

This blog was initiated as an expression of 'activism'. Maybe not the flavour of activism some would agree is 'proper activism', so here's my definition of the word: 'Behaviour, gestures and efforts that promote engagement and discussion towards an improved existence.'

Periodically, I will be injecting stuff into the mix that's decidedly not about Stoney Creek, references that...well, add to the stew. As I have a personal blog where I tend to cover this stuff on a daily basis, I'll endeavour to show some restraint and only feature bits and pieces I feel are worthy of the cause...namely activism as defined above. Here is my first contribution in that vein.

As individuals we are not powerless. Opportunities for meaningful and important action are everywhere: in the food we eat, the work we do, the transportation we use, the manner in which we relate to others, the clothing we wear, the learning we acquire, the compassionate causes we support, the level of attention we invest in our moment-to-moment passage through Life, and so on. The list is endless, since the stuff of transformation is identical with the stuff from which our daily lives are constructed.

We are each responsible for the conduct of our lives...and we are each unique. Therefore we are each uniquely responsible for our actions and choices in this pivotal time in human evolution. There is no one who can take our place. We each weave a singular strand in the web of Life. No one can weave that strand for us. What we each contribute is distinct, and what we each withhold is uniquely irreplaceable.

Duane Elgin, 'Voluntary Simplicity' (Second Revised Edition), p.134

A comment! A palpable comment!

(Not that it's a particularly cogent or nicely-expressed one. But Hope springs eternal.)

jay_canadian said...

When I read this, all I hear is 'bitching', in the full force of the mean of the word.

'Assuming', I repeat 'assuming', you got to be kidding me, especially when it is clearly known that 'when you assume - you make an a$$ out of you and me'. Because you did not perform your due diligence, in acquiring the proper own of the property, it is somehow everyone else's fault, but it is strictly your own.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly states:

Life, liberty and security of person

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Of which includes his property and the freedom to use it in any fashion he deems fit. You do not like change, that's your problem, as I see it, well maybe its time to move to Never-Neverland, where nothing ever changes.

Have a nice trip.

Fascinating.

Let's see...my first thought was 'Does Merlo have a nephew in Grimsville...?' (Thank you, StatCounter, and your 'Location' element.) Seriously; the grammar, the leaps in illogic, the specious -and inaccurate- references to documents he clearly has no understanding of...

My second thought was 'Wow; he read what I've written and this is his reaction?' Either I'm a lousy communicator, or he's somewhat incapacitated. And I know I'm a great communicator, so there ya go.

Look; this is a kind of parallel to the newspaper coverage. Merlo's Clear-cut isn't about laws, or regulations or anything like that. As I've said elsewhere, if there was no butternut tree issue, no Endangered Species Act question, and there'd been no investigation of any kind by any authority, does anyone really believe that there'd be nothing to be discuss here? That a clear-cut would have been executed and everyone would just shrug and carry on? I know I certainly wouldn't have been in this category, nor would anyone I've discussed this issue with.

Because Jay, if you do, if you seriously believe that Mr. Merlo is free to do whatever the Hell he wants...then I'm so glad there are other people in the world to handle the thorny adult issues, so you can go back to deciding whatever it is that you're actually inclined to -and capable of- deciding.

I loves me a good debate, I appreciate a thoughtfully-considered and well-delivered contrary opinion...but with as much experience as I've had over the years with such creatures -a considerable amount- I knows 'em when I sees 'em...and Jay, yours ain't one.

But don't be a stranger.